Thesis 20
As asserted earlier, Thesis 19 says and gives everything that “Objective Justification” would attempt to say and give, but without changing God or putting words into His mouth. It holds forth not a preexisting forensic declaration (which is not recorded in Scripture) about the world being without sin, but simply the merit of Christ (and the assurance of the sinner’s righteousness thereby) that is the proper object of faith, as is clear from the early Lutheran exegetes and dogmaticians.26
Thesis 21
Regarding the proper object of faith: ought it be a pre-existing declaration/judicial pronouncement of
forgiveness (without words) or the acquisition of a judicial pronouncement of forgiveness? The latter has much testimony among our theologians prior to 1850, while the former is asserted with such vehemence by, e.g., Pieper,27 that it is said that the Gospel is gone altogether if such an assertion is not made. Such an assertion about this formulation that seems unknown (other than as something to be condemned as a part of Huber’s error) prior to the mid-19th century,28 is not only ridiculous on its face, but injurious to the Church, as it disparages the orthodox Lutheran fathers and leads to parochialism and disrespect for older Lutheran writings that is so prevalent today.29
Thesis 22
Regarding the proper object of faith: ought it be a pre-existing declaration/judicial pronouncement of
forgiveness (without any recording of God making such a pronouncement) or change in the heart of the immutable God without His saying that His heart has changed, or the acquisition of a judicial pronouncement of forgiveness and a new venue (Christ, the Mercy Seat) through which such a declaration may be received? In either case, there is an already made ‘thing’ to be communicated and trusted in; the difference is that the first two do not have specific testimony from Scripture to such an effect, while the later does.30
26 We commend to the reader the Rev. Paul Rydecki’s “The Forensic Appeal to the Throne of Grace,” especially to the quotes which appear in each appendix to that essay (as well as in its body). Unlike the snippets generally adduced by those who wish eisegetically to find the Lutheran fathers as supporters of “Objective Justification,” Pastor Rydecki translates the context
around such quotes, as well, and thereby demonstrates that those who would thus push the fathers into their service do so unfairly. The paper is available at http://tinyurl.com/n28ndt6
27 Christian Dogmatics, II:349–351
28 See the second footnote to Thesis 24.
29 If an appeal were made to Luther’s comments in his lectures on Galatians (AE, Vol. 26, p. 280), that in Christ’s death the world was set free from sin without reference to faith, one must also concede that there is no longer any death, as “death is conquered and abolished in the whole world so that now it is nothing but a picture of death,” except that Luther makes his intent clear when he says (p. 285), “I believe in the holy church.” This is plainly nothing else than if we were to say, ‘I believe that there is no sin and no death in the church.’” So, also, (p. 286) “Therefore, wherever there is faith in Christ, there sin has in fact been abolished, put to death, and buried. But where there is no faith in Christ, there sin remains.”
30 Cf. Hebrews 9:5 and Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2, etc.
Thus far the Theses.
***
GJ - Thesis 20 strikes me as much clearer than 19; it is the turning point for the entire matter of justification.
The term forensic is used often among Lutherans, using the language of the legal system - the declaration of innocence. Objective Justification falsely declares that God has declared the entire world free of sin and guilt, absolved and saved (with some minor variations in language).
Luther, the Book of Concord, and the immediate post-Concord age of orthodox theologians agree with St. Paul - this declaration is individual rather than global, occurring the moment someone comes to faith in Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel proclamation.
Groups do not have faith. The entire world is almost without faith. Therefore a timeless global absolution is utter nonsense. Luther has made that point in sermons. No one can give his faith to another, nor can one person claim salvation based on the faith of anyone else.
Thus Objective Justification is a fabrication both in terminology and in meaning.
I would put Luther's great statement (in the footnote and graphic) in the text of the Theses, since the Formula of Concord does the same with various quotations. If the Objective Justification advocates want to say they stand with Luther, let them explain how their dogma squares with this Galatians Commentary commended for studying justification by the Concordists.
 |
| UOJ advocates are completely blind to the efficacy of the Word in the Scriptures and in Luther; thus, they blaspheme the work of the Holy Spirit in the Means of Grace. |
